10 Commandments Monument in Plattsmouth, Nebraska.
Posted on 09/21/2004 6:30:56 AM PDT by Hat-Trick
September 21, 2004
ACLU requests restraint on press
BY TODD COOPER
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
In a stark turnabout from its free-speech advocacy, the ACLU urged a judge Monday to prevent the Omaha World-Herald from publishing the name of the Plattsmouth, Neb., man who sued the city over a Ten Commandments monument.
10 Commandments Monument in Plattsmouth, Nebraska.
Amy Miller, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union Nebraska, asked the U.S. District Court for an order prohibiting The World-Herald from disclosing the man's identity, arguing that his safety and well-being would be endangered.
The newspaper vowed to fight the ACLU's request, saying it will continue to report on the court case because it is part of a major public policy issue. The case, like several across the country, has sparked widespread debate about the placement of religious objects in public places.
Legal experts said the ACLU faces a major hurdle, noting that no high court has restrained the press, prior to publication, in the 28 years since a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling out of Nebraska.
U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf will hear arguments this afternoon on the ACLU's request.
"It's a highly ironic position for (the ACLU) to be in," said Josephine Potuto, a constitutional law professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. "They are typically the defenders of free expression.
"It's very, very difficult to succeed with a prior restraint. In this case, he is a plaintiff in a major lawsuit involving public policy. Typically, you wouldn't expect that he would be able to hide behind a pseudonym."
When the ACLU filed a lawsuit on the man's behalf three years ago, attorneys argued that the man should be able to proceed under the name John Doe. The ACLU said the pseudonym was necessary because of threats the man received over his protest of the monument in a city park.
Federal magistrate David L. Piester allowed the man to proceed anonymously, but that order applied only to the attorneys and the parties involved in the case.
Kopf eventually ordered Plattsmouth to remove the monument from a city park, saying it violated the constitutional separation between church and state. But the city appealed that decision and is awaiting a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Now the ACLU wants the court to issue an order of confidentiality on the plaintiff's identity to apply beyond the courtroom.
Miller argued that the man's "safety and well-being are in danger if his name is publicly known."
Larry King, executive editor of The World-Herald, said the fact that the man has previously said he received threats from someone in Plattsmouth shows that his identity is already known.
"It is naive of the ACLU to think that nobody in Plattsmouth knows the identity of the man," he said.
King said The World-Herald is not at the point of publishing any article identifying the man. But if newspapers made publication decisions based on anonymous threats, King said, they would have to quit writing about "everyone from football coaches to politicians."
"This is not a case in which an individual, through no fault or action of his own, found himself in the middle of a dispute," King said. "This man is trying to force a city to make a controversial change it doesn't want to make. If you want to change public policy, it should not be a surprise that you could be publicly identified."
The U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to allow pre-publication restrictions on the press, even in cases when the government has sought to stop publication because of national security interests or an accused's rights to a fair trial.
In the landmark 1976 case - Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart - the state's newspapers and other media challenged a judge's order restricting their ability to report statements made by Erwin Charles Simants after the slayings of six people in Sutherland, Neb.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the censorship.
"Prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights," the court ruled in the 1976 case.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director for the national Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the Supreme Court has never upheld an order preventing the press from publishing.
To get such an order, someone would need to demonstrate to a court that harm is so imminent and serious that preventing publication is the only way to avoid it, Dalglish said.
Dalglish said she didn't see that standard fitting in this case.
"Somebody at the ACLU better brush up on constitutional law," she said.
Potuto and John Snowden, a communications law professor at UNL, said courts have muzzled attorneys from disclosing identities in cases filed using pseudonyms.
However, Potuto said, those restrictions have been limited to the parties in the case, not to the press when it can obtain the information on its own.
"Prior restraints are heavily presumed unconstitutional," Snowden said. "Restraint on the press has virtually no chance of success."
World-Herald staff writer Jeffrey Robb contributed to this report.
Thought I'd ping you on this one. Interesting case.
I suspect that the ACLU would fully support the members of the MSM who demanded and published Buckhead's real name.
That's what they say.
What they do looks like a fight against religion and all things American. This case fits the pattern: ACLU is protecting its ally in the fight against religion.
We oppose the First Amendment. Newspapers ought to be controlled by government fiat.
We oppose the Second Amendment. You rubes don't need guns.
And we aren't too crazy about the other parts of the Bill of Rights either!
Heh. That thought arises unbidden every time I read a story about the Atheist Criminal-Lovers Union.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
============================================
Yeah... and I'm not surprised either... considering that ACLU actually stands for the Arabic Communist Luciferian Union !!!
.
I wonder if the pro-10c threat came in the form of a death threat. That would be ironic, wouldn't it?
"I suspect that the ACLU would fully support the members of the MSM who demanded and published Buckhead's real name"
Link?
Don't know, but the irony in this one is definitely thick.
As for Buckhead's name being published, here is just one of many posts on FR I've seen: Georgia lawyer led challenge to CBS documents [Buckhead... FreeRepublic!] . Search for Buckhead for others.
Anonymous snail mail note to a blogger with the name of the guy.
Make it moot.
When people try to force entire populations to abandon their faith and law to please one malcontent, they should expect to be persecuted. Actions have consequences.
I was just wondering how they found out who was Buckhead. According to that article in the link, they traced him from his freeper page. I just looked at "Buckhead"'s page and it's empty.
I am always amazed at the positions of the ACLU and their seemingly all-powerfull status. At what point do the American people start taking on these clowns?
I believe a good start would be to start posting their membership and more importantly their private sponsors and contributors.
If these people and corporations were notified of citizen's displeasure and loathing of this organization in much the same manner as the sponsors of Danny Boy and CBS, it may have an impact on their finances.
Any thoughts?
No, I'd say they are typically the legal arm of the American Communist Party, and have faithfully served the needs of Joe Stalin since the 1930's; and will continue to do so until this nation wakes up and labels the ACLU for what it is; a terrorist group bent on the downfall of the USA.
Is that public-domain information? I don't have any idea how the ACLU is funded. I would guess by lawsuit damages and contributions from members?
They'll defend your right to free expression, as long as they agree with what is being expressed.
I believe the ACLU has gotten Congress to grant them some kind of waiver from having to reveal their supporters and contributers. There may have even been a court case in which it was upheld. And the Republicans haven't had the intestinal fortitude to reverse it since they took over 10 years ago.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.